+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? (/showthread.php?tid=14759)
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-03-2009
Paralus wrote:
Quote:Paullus places far too much faith in a sainted Xenophon....I don't think one can disparage Xenophon by such scorn. Let us remind ourselves that he was an experienced General and so knows what he is talking about. He is also our only source who gives us detail of Hoplite drill and formations. I prefer what he has to say on the subject, rather than the meaningless opinions of modern "armchair generals" who have never themselves even taken part in military formations/drills, let alone have any practical knowledge of ancient warfare as Xenophon does. Which is not to say that I read him uncritically in all respects.
I agree for the most part with what you say about his political bias ( for those who want to know more, I recommend "Xenophon" by J.K. Anderson publisher Duckworth &co ltd 1974 ISBN 0 7156 0702 2). I don't agree with you that the reason Xenophon, an expert General, forbore to comment on Theban tactics was because they were "too difficult to write down". Rather his political leanings did not allow him to be dispassionate, and if something pained him he chose not to write of it, or not provide detail, as, for example he writes of the brilliant little cavalry action that his son died leading, but forbears to mention Gryllus by name....
Lastly, the Spartan attempt to outflank and envelop ('anastrophe')probably did not involve any 'thinning' at all ( the Spartans weren't tactically imbeciles). Although Arrian in his tactical manual (9.5) refers to extending the phalanx by thinning, Plutarch's version is different. Lazenby hypothesised that in fact the 'folding back'( anastrophe) involved moving troops from the un-engaged left of the Spartan contingent to the right for this purpose, so that Cleombrotos was attempting what Agis at Mantinea attempted, and perhaps the Spartans were also trying to increase their depth. It is hard to discern exactly what the Spartans were attempting to do, because they never got to complete their manouevre thanks to Pelopidas charging and disrupting it, and Cleombrotos didn't survive to explain.....
.....and the confusion surrounding what the Spartans attempted to do may be why Xenophon does not speculate on the matter, as well.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 06-03-2009
It is not "scorn". Xenophon's Spartan bias is - or should be - well known. My choice of word (I was too lazy to edit it afterwards) was not the best. "Painful" is better. He chose not to elaborate on the Spartans being outdone tactically just as he chose not to record the details of the Theban generals but chose to record his disgust at Pelopidas' "medising" to position Thebes as prostatai of the resultant "King's Peace".
He was more interested in excusing: Cleombrotus and others drinking at the lunchtime meal; the incompetent Peloponnesian cavalry and all the acts of fortune going Thebes' way. One would never have guessed the victory was due to innovative and well prepared tactics by standout generals.
As to bringing troops from the "unengaged left", I don't see this. The left were just that: unengaged and, if we can believe Xenophon, more than interested in a Spartan fall. No, I think it was as related: trying to extend the right wing. Had they done so who knows? The Thebans will have been taken in the unprotected flank. They were not up to it though. Nor did they have the time.
Bo "baby" Blues....
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Justin of the New Yorkii - 06-04-2009
Quote:Okay, question then from you guys. It is often said that Philip II "learned" a lot as a Theban hostage and applied this knowledge to his own phalanx many years later. Then what exactly did he learn and apply if the Macedonian phalanx fought in a depth of 8 men, a similar depth to the old-school phalanx employed by the city-states? I mean, wasn't the chief innovation of the Thebans a deeper phalanx used to smash the typical 8 or 12-deep formation or am I missing something?
I think the chief innovation made by Epaminondas was principally in the concept of force concentration; remember that at Leuctra, he had only about 7,000 levy hoplites facing an enemy force of over 10,000 hoplites, so he needed to devise a way to win the battle without asking too much of his lesser troops.
Most of the old phalanxes would have the weakest hoplites on the left side, and the strongest on the right, so that the lesser troops would be afforded greater protection from their shields. Epaminondas knew this was how the Spartans would be deployed.
So instead of using his weakest forces on the left (opposite Cleombrotus and his crack troops), Epaminondas deployed the Theban Sacred Band on the left in a super-deep phalanx, with his lesser troops staggered in echelon to the right.
He rolled the dice, hoping to destroy Cleombrotus' bodyguard as quickly as possible so the rest of the Spartans would rout before the lesser Thebans on the right got overwhelmed.
![[Image: Battle_of_Leuctra%2C_371_BC_-_Decisive_action.gif]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Battle_of_Leuctra%2C_371_BC_-_Decisive_action.gif)
The Sacred Band actually took pretty severe losses at Leuctra during the initial clash, but Cleombrotus was killed and the Thebans were clearly winning, so they wheeled right and rolled up the Spartan line like a carpet. The lesser Thebans on the right didn't have to sustain contact for long at all.
Alexander's deployment at Gaugamela was similar in principle; he was outnumbered, so he went aggressively right at Darius' position, hoping to a knockout blow quickly and end the battle before the Persian numbers could tell.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 06-04-2009
Quote: Lazenby hypothesised that in fact the 'folding back'( anastrophe) involved moving troops from the un-engaged left of the Spartan contingent to the right for this purpose, so that Cleombrotos was attempting what Agis at Mantinea attempted, and perhaps the Spartans were also trying to increase their depth. It is hard to discern exactly what the Spartans were attempting to do, because they never got to complete their manouevre thanks to Pelopidas charging and disrupting it, and Cleombrotos didn't survive to explain.....
I'm with Paul on this one, Xenophon is perhaps our best source for much of this period- You'd prefer Ephorus??? He just has to be understood in context, and often we don't have the knowledge to do that since he leaves out so many details that are obvious to a man of his day.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 06-04-2009
Quote:Xenophon gives full detail of the Drill for this. (Xen Cyropaedia II.3.21) Xenophon (Constitution XI.4) also gives a less detailed account of the drill of a Spartan enomotia (platoon) of 36 forming up in single file, and "threes" (i.e. three files of 12 - the files of Spartans are often described as 12 deep) which then halve into "sixes" ( the enomotia in close order is 6x6 ). That 'open' to 'close' order is referred to here is certain, because we are told "the phalanx becomes thinner or deeper" i.e. the frontage does not expand or contract.
Again the account of them forming in “6” is so that they can go to dinner!!! At a buffet depth is less important than on the battlefield. I think you corrupt his meaning in the “Lak. constitution”. Below is the text: Xen. Const. Lac. 11
“The men so equipped were divided into six regiments of cavalry and infantry. The officers of each citizen regiment comprise one colonel, four captains, eight first lieutenants and sixteen second lieutenants. These regiments at the word of command form sections4 sometimes (two), sometimes three, and sometimes six abreast. [5] “
There is no implication here that they must always double down to 6. In fact it seems to me to read that they can choose to form in 2, 3, or 6 files as need be. You fall into a logical fallacy in that if you are going to double down to 6, your three files need space between them. This is not the case if you have no intention of doubling beyond the file of 12, but instead form these 12 man files in close order. Nothing could be simpler, and you can form in any depth from 50+ to two.
Quote:Just so! Marathon will have taught a lesson indeed to Greeks....don't thin your Phalanx against Asiatics, or it might get broken through ! 'Normal' formations then are what we might expect to see rather than especially 'thinned' ones.......confirming Xenophon, that fighting in 'half-files' of four was 'normal/customary/the Rule'
My friend that is Olympic quality mental gymnastics! :lol: How does showing that thin line failed prove that Xenophon’s line were 4 deep- quite thin! Surely you don’t believe that the center at marathon was two deep and the wings were 4???
Quote:...there are innumerable videos around of riots etc showing a thin police line successfully resisting the 'shove' of demonstrators much deeper. Significantly, once the parties are armed there is generally no 'shoving' but rather a 'stand-off' distance between the two forces equal to 'weapon's reach' and sparring takes place at this distance.....
I’m not going to argue this yet again. For the lurkers, an intitial charge of a group of men of any size can be stopped by a line of a few men who stand in tight formation. The reason is that the attacking groups cannot be as well coordinated and the pushing force of each subsequent man does not add to the total force simultaneously. What occurs is that each new man hits a moment after the first has been stopped, so it is like a series of one man strikes. Crowd pushing is very different, the people are already in a tight block and any pushing done by members of the group in the same direction does add up simultaneously.
The first is like spraying a wall with 5 lbs of BBs, while the crowd is like hitting it with a 5lb sledge hammer. The result is very different.
Take a look back at your videos and you will see that the crowd is not pushing in any coordinated manner, nor is it likely to be at full “crowd” density.
Quote:Agreed - perhaps one should speak of 'active' participation and 'passive' participation.....but you sure as Heck don't need 11/16ths of your force to achieve this effect!! ( morale boosting and physically blocking retreat).
See, you, like me, disagree with Cawkwell, Goldsworthy, et al. The answer, of course, is that there was a literal pushing, othismos phase that required depth. :wink:
Hence the original question: "The Macedonian Phalanx; Why so deep?"
Quote:My answer: On the evidence we have, the best answer is that Greek and Macedonian files, whether 8,12 or 16 deep ( and rarely 10) did not normally fight as files, but rather as half-files, thus the Macedonian phalanx generally would have fought 8 deep, with 5/8 of the soldiers actively participating with their weapons, and 3/8ths passively participating in support.
I have no problem with that as a possibilty for sarissa armed macedonians formed in 16 x 16 blocks, for whom the tactical manuals and Cynocephalae show they can be very flexible in their deployment and their interpersonal spacing even after deployment. I simply believe you are wrong to transpose it back onto greek hoplites and purport that all of the depth figures that we are given refer to the penultimate deployment as opposed to the more obvious, logical, and meaningful final combat deployment.
In fact if you could prove that the Speira were forming in the penultimate double for combat, I think that it would have interesting implications. The differences between the hoplite phalanx and the sarissa phalanx have never been fully explored to my satisfaction. Perhaps an extra 3' of space is beneficial when the men are weilding such long spears. Surely the reach of multiple sarissa beyond the front lines midigates the hazards of fighting in opened order.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-05-2009
Paul B. wrote:
Quote:Again the account of them forming in “6” is so that they can go to dinner!!! At a buffet depth is less important than on the battlefield. I think you corrupt his meaning in the “Lak. constitution”. Below is the text: Xen. Const. Lac. 11
“The men so equipped were divided into six regiments of cavalry and infantry. The officers of each citizen regiment comprise one colonel, four captains, eight first lieutenants and sixteen second lieutenants. These regiments at the word of command form sections4 sometimes (two), sometimes three, and sometimes six abreast. [5] “
You seem to be conflating two separate accounts of Xenophon here. The reference to practising Drill while marching to Dinner in a large mess-tent is from the quasi 'factional' Cyropaedia (II.21-23)...and I'm quite sure you don't believe for one minute that the purpose of the Drill practise was to proceed to Dinner in an orderly fashion!!! :lol: :lol:
If you do hold such a belief, it should be dispelled a little later. Xenophon is at pains to have Cyrus show leadership by rewarding with a feast those company captains who use every opportunity to drill their men, including going to dinner ( which is still the practise in most militaries today). A captain tells Cyrus he drills both getting to dinner, and in reverse, leaving dinner.
Cyrus says ( II.23 )
" Well then, I will invite you because you give your lines practice both in coming and in going, by night and by day, and also because you give your bodies exercise by marching about, and improve your minds by instruction. Since, therefore, you do all this doubly, it is only fair that I should furnish you a double feast also."
This description of Xenophon's would be familiar to anyone who has served in the Military and been to Boot Camp !! :wink:
The passage you quote is from the 'Lacedaemonian Constitution', where Xenophon is giving a brief description of Spartan Military methods, and how simple and straightforward they are. The "(two)" is in brackets because there is a lacuna in the text, and it is not certain if 'one' or 'two' should be inserted, but one is consistent with what Xenophon says elsewhere.
Quote:There is no implication here that they must always double down to 6. In fact it seems to me to read that they can choose to form in 2, 3, or 6 files as need be. You fall into a logical fallacy in that if you are going to double down to 6, your three files need space between them. This is not the case if you have no intention of doubling beyond the file of 12, but instead form these 12 man files in close order. Nothing could be simpler, and you can form in any depth from 50+ to two.We are here concerned with the 'norm', or what is typical. We are told that Spartan 'platoons' typically of 36 men ( depending on the age-groups called up) could form up in (probably) single file, threes (12 deep) or sixes( 6deep). No other depths are mentioned - no "sometimes 50, sometimes two". What you say is theoretically possible, but not what Xenophon says. Remember that each platoon/enomotia, once drawn up in Phalanx cannot change its front, so all manoevres must be carried out by thinning or deepening the line, just as Xenophon says.
In order that readers can visualise what is happening, I'm including the schematics I sent you some time ago - that way our discussion will be easier to follow.
Note that in 'normal/open ' order, in which they manouevre, (such as Laconian countermarch - essentially what a High school band does to reverse course) the formation is 8x8 in the Cyropaedian drill, and the depth of the 'normal' formation is correctly described as 8 deep. However, my hypothesis is that the final Charge was carried out in 'close' order of half-files - in which formation manouevres such as Laconian counter-march could not be carried out. ( and not just mine - compare similar ideas in Connolly P. and Anderson J.K. ) Once the Phalanx 'closed up', it was committed and could only move forward/back ( except for the famous 'rightward drift')
Xenophon's Spartan drill is more briefly described, but follows the same principles.
Quote:How does showing that thin line failed prove that Xenophon’s line were 4 deep- quite thin! Surely you don’t believe that the center at marathon was two deep and the wings were 4???
My point is simply to counter the "special pleading" argument that when Xenophon talks of customary battle formation being 4 deep, he is speaking of an especially thin one used only against Asiatics. Given knowledge that a "thin" centre failed at Marathon, the Ten Thousand will hardly have "thinned" their formation, ergo the "customary Battle formation" is just that !
D
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 06-05-2009
Quote:You seem to be conflating two separate accounts of Xenophon here. The reference to practising Drill while marching to Dinner in a large mess-tent is from the quasi 'factional' Cyropaedia (II.21-23)...and I'm quite sure you don't believe for one minute that the purpose of the Drill practise was to proceed to Dinner in an orderly fashion!!!
If you do hold such a belief, it should be dispelled a little later. Xenophon is at pains to have Cyrus show leadership by rewarding with a feast those company captains who use every opportunity to drill their men, including going to dinner ( which is still the practise in most militaries today). A captain tells Cyrus he drills both getting to dinner, and in reverse, leaving dinner.
You mentioned both quotes above. Of course the idea was to get his men to dinner, for that is what he was doing. He may have been doing it in the same manner he would have formed for battle, but because at worst he faced an irate chef or two :oops: he was free to double down to 6- something that was within the tactical repertoire but not something that had to be done. They could simply stop at the 12 rank stage and form close, thus preserving depth if they wished. Surely you don't think this beyond their skill.
Quote:We are here concerned with the 'norm', or what is typical. We are told that Spartan 'platoons' typically of 36 men ( depending on the age-groups called up) could form up in (probably) single file, threes (12 deep) or sixes( 6deep).
My point is that there is no "norm" look back at the numbers of ranks we see in battle descriptions, they are all over the place. When we read of spartans being able to form in 12 or 6 its stands tro reason that they do it by cutting short the doubling process. To me this makes much more sense than labelling the penultimate double and assuming he really means 6 and 3.
Quote: No other depths are mentioned - no "sometimes 50, sometimes two". What you say is theoretically possible, but not what Xenophon says.
Of course he does. He mentions 4, which means also a stage with 8, 16 or 24 if tripled and 32 or 48 at Cilicia. He mentions 6 and thus 12, 24, 48 at the dinner drill. He implies 6, 12, and 36 in the Lak. constitution. He mentions 50, probably 48 and some hangers on, in relation to Thebes and they had to have some means of forming at this depth. If we jump authors, then Thukydides mentions 25 at delium, which is convieniently half of 50 and thus may mean that Epaminondas simply stopped the process sooner. He mentions the Orthoi Lochoi formation, surely they could have formed this with no gaps between lochoi to get a deep phalanx.
The process of simply stopping the doubling at whatever depth you require and forming in close order at that depth seems to me about as simple an explanation as you could have for how they arrived at all these different depths- especially the real deep ones which just happen to be divisible into the usual file sizes. The fact that units were expected to be able to form in different depths- for example the Thebans were not to form deeper than 16 during the Corinthian war by treaty, but did anyway- tells us that depth cannot be slavishly tied to unit size, but had to be decided on the spot.
Quote:Remember that each platoon/enomotia, once drawn up in Phalanx cannot change its front, so all manoevres must be carried out by thinning or deepening the line, just as Xenophon says.
In order that readers can visualise what is happening, I'm including the schematics I sent you some time ago - that way our discussion will be easier to follow.
Any formation a phalanx can get into they can get out of. They can simply "undouble" prior to a countermarch if they need the space.
Quote:Note that in 'normal/open ' order, in which they manouevre, (such as Laconian countermarch - essentially what a High school band does to reverse course) the formation is 8x8 in the Cyropaedian drill, and the depth of the 'normal' formation is correctly described as 8 deep. However, my hypothesis is that the final Charge was carried out in 'close' order of half-files - in which formation manouevres such as Laconian counter-march could not be carried out. ( and not just mine - compare similar ideas in Connolly P. and Anderson J.K. ) Once the Phalanx 'closed up', it was committed and could only move forward/back ( except for the famous 'rightward drift')
Or undouble back to 4x16 if they need lanes, then redouble.
Quote:My point is simply to counter the "special pleading" argument that when Xenophon talks of customary battle formation being 4 deep, he is speaking of an especially thin one used only against Asiatics. Given knowledge that a "thin" centre failed at Marathon, the Ten Thousand will hardly have "thinned" their formation, ergo the "customary Battle formation" is just that !
But I agree with your point. Given that a line of probably 4 or 3 failed and was broken through by lightly armed persians, it would be suicidal to form 4 deep to face hoplites. There are few contexts were such shallow depths are mentioned for actual battles (as opposed to shows and dinner theatre) and usually there is an explanation- like the Spartans at the long walls trying to extend their line as far as possible.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 06-05-2009
Quote:[ Xenophon is perhaps our best source for much of this period- You'd prefer Ephorus??? He just has to be understood in context, and often we don't have the knowledge to do that since he leaves out so many details that are obvious to a man of his day.
He leaves out what is not conducive to his narative or his viewpoint. That, I'm afraid, is much.
Xenophon was well informed of what transpired at Leuktra -- of that you can rest well assured. What he chose to write is another thing.
Quote:Although Arrian in his tactical manual (9.5) refers to extending the phalanx by thinning, Plutarch's version is different. Lazenby hypothesised that in fact the 'folding back'( anastrophe) involved moving troops from the un-engaged left of the Spartan contingent to the right for this purpose, so that Cleombrotos was attempting what Agis at Mantinea attempted, and perhaps the Spartans were also trying to increase their depth.
I see nothing of that in Plutarch (Pelopidas, 23.1-2):
Quote:...the enemy understood what he was doing and began to change their formation; they were opening up their right wing and making an encircling movement, in order to surround Epaminondas and envelop him with their numbers.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 06-05-2009
Quote:I see nothing of that in Plutarch (Pelopidas, 23.1-2):
I sent Paul a paper that showed this to be probable (at least i think that is what he's refering to). If he will be good enough to remind me of the title, I'll send you a copy.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 06-06-2009
Tried searching for the thread on hypaspists arms but am too tired to find it. Therefore I shall deposit this here as it was raised here. I shall get back to you Paul B on Leuktra and would like that article if you remember it.
Quote:I think you would agree that the sculptural and painting evidence shows that before and during Philip and Alexander's reign, the 'Aspis' was definitely carried and used by some Macedonian troops ( e.g. the 'Alexander sarcophagus' , the Veria relief, the Aghios Athenasios frieze, various tomb paintings etc) ….
…and if a 'clincher' were needed, the shields found in the 'Philip' tomb ( probably that of Philip Arrhidaeus, Alexander's half-brother) were indeed 'aspides', and if a Macedonian King fought on foot, where else but among his body-guard, the Hypaspists?
To which I replied:
Quote:There is the possibility that the king’s Royal foot Guards (“Royal hypaspists”) - somatophylakes as Ptolemy evidently referred to them as on occasion – may be the aspis-armed troops about the king.
Which you termed "clutching at straws".
Now all that the iconography (the “Alexander” sarcophagus e.g.) tells us is that regular aspides may have been used. The sarcophagus – if it depicts actuality – would then tell us that those troops who did were in the immediate vicinity of the king. These are the agema of the hypaspists (the royal hypaspists).
The artwork in Macedonian tombs and the burials are fine as far as they go. Such burials are not the province of the person who would find himself in the rank and file of the regular hypaspists; rather they are the burials of those of means: the nobility or “upper class”. We know of no noble individuals in the regular hypaspists and what we do know is that they were recruited from the “biggest and most powerful” of the Makedones – not on the basis of their wealth or bloodlines. Those that we know of attained rank through ability. Indeed the regular hypaspists were most likely suplemented by the best of the phalanx as the eastern anabasis went on.
In stark contrast the royal hypaspists are indisputably of the nobility. They may well have been able to afford such burials but I’d seriously doubt that the average hypaspists could.
As I said, something else to think on.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Macedon - 06-22-2009
The answer to the question "why so deep?" is more like "Why why so deep?". According to the ancient tacticians, the "synaspismos" was an invention of Phillip II, who "copied" it from Homer's passages as to the formation of the Greeks outside Troy ( Diodorus Siculus, XVI.8 ). Asclepiodotus is very clear when describing this density and cites its usage. According to him, the phalanx (he only talks about the Macedonian phalanx) is advancing in open order when away from the enemy (marching density), in close order when charging (practically marching to fight) and in synaspismos when charged by the enemy. Thus, we can understand, that in order for a phalanx to be able to carry out synaspismos and have a safe depth (less than four is called by the tacticians weak or "avathis" (of little depth) and is not suggested unless the circumstances are proper) it should be normally 16 men deep (in conventional close order), so that during synaspismos it would become 8 men deep. So, the phrase "x-man deep" is pointless without also describing the density of the formation. For example Alexander's army at Issus is described by Callisthenes (according to Polybius) to march initially 32-deep, falling to 16-deep and lastly to 8-deep. This didn't mean that the men were deployed in the wings but that the density of the formation, as Alexander approached the Persians, increased.
Then of course comes the question, "why would a general opt for a deeper formation?" The main advantage of a deep phalanx (whether Macedonian, Hoplite, Roman or barbarian) is the fact that it can withstand more pressure. A thin line is easier to break, while a deeper line would hold its ground longer, constantly providing support for the front ranks and keeping them in place. The othismos desribed in hoplitic battles is, according to my opinion, poorly understood, especially by western historians. The verb "othizein" is not used as "forcibly push" but as "push" and this consists a great difference. The notion of the Greek phalanx rushing like Football players against their opponents to overturn them is clearly mistaken. First, the running charge is attested to first have been used by the Athenians in Marathon, secondly, the hoplite armies were (as were the Romans) based on taxis (order). Leaving the line and breaking ranks were outside the scope of heavy Greek infantry tactics (ekdromoi being a noted exception, but they did not charge the enemy line). The Lacedaemonians were renowned for their slow charge under the sounds of flutes. It is also known that the "Othismos" phase was long after the "Doratismos", which demanded space between the hoplite and his target. Actually, we have lots of descriptions of the "Othismos", which are not as known as they should. The Greek commanders would use commands such as "Half a (or one) step forward!" (Give me half a step and we have conquered!) and the whole phalanx or maybe a predesigned part thereof would obey in a well timed and ordered fashion, so that cohesion would not be lost. This could happen multiple times and had tremendous effects on the opponents psychology. Yet, again, the back ranks would not really push, they would more like support the front lines. Should 50 men really push forward, the first lines would be crushed or lose their steps and places in the line and this was absolutely not the case.
In phalanxes armed in the Macedonian way, no actual physical force was exerted and so huge numbers of ranks did not work. We have to imagine the sarissae being swung forward and back and for this to be done, some space was needed. The shield was also smaller and could not be used to actually support the front rank as a wall but only as a means of protection from missiles. On the other hand, only 4 ranks (never attested in a Macedonian phalanx) would not present enough spearpoints and any casualties would make the phalanx lose cohesion. This is why the tacticians opted for a final depth of 8 men. So, although we tend to think of the Macedonian phalanxes as very deep, their depth was not that deep in reality. Hoplite formations are attested up to 50 men deep, Xenophon has the Egyptians arrayed against Cyrus the Great formed 100 men deep. Macedonian phalanxes are attested up to 32 men deep and then, most times in open order (sometimes we don't really know).
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 06-22-2009
Quote: The notion of the Greek phalanx rushing like Football players against their opponents to overturn them is clearly mistaken. First, the running charge is attested to first have been used by the Athenians in Marathon, secondly, the hoplite armies were (as were the Romans) based on taxis (order).
It is also known that the "Othismos" phase was long after the "Doratismos", which demanded space between the hoplite and his target. Actually, we have lots of descriptions of the "Othismos", which are not as known as they should.
Should 50 men really push forward, the first lines would be crushed or lose their steps and places in the line and this was absolutely not the case.
I agree that the current "orthodox" model is flawed for all these reasons, but I do think that othismos involved a physical "push" forward. Take a look at my model, which takes into account what really happens when groups of men collide, you will find possible answers for some of the objections above. Here:
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Macedon - 06-23-2009
First of all we have to understand what the ancients meant when they used the word "othizein". First, we have to note that it emerges again and again in battles all through antiquity, rarely as some kind of a drill but more as a result of normal fighting. In reality, it was used to describe the withdrawal of the enemy phalanx, sometimes for hundreds of meters. This use (the most frequent one actually) should not be confused with the actual phase we are discussing. Then we have to conclude whether there actually was some special phase or tactic, the one we understand as "othismos". First we have no evidence that this was actually a Greek invention or a tactic not used by other heavy infantry. It is not described in any tactical manual (maybe because these are usually about the Macedonian phalanx and not the hoplite one but it is also not described in any Roman and Byzantine manual, although they also are connected with the word). From these facts, we can infer that this tactic (which is informally described always as basic infantry tactics) was not something that was deemed important enough to be described. This would mean A. that it didn't exist, B. that it was all too common for centuries and for many armies C. that we are unlucky enough to not have any surviving manuscripts regarding the issue. I am not right now inferring that there was no special tactic in a hoplite phalanx that was what we nowadays call othismos, I only try to bring up the complexity of thew issue and justify the many theories and possible mistakes.
Facts.
1. The hoplite phalanxes were usually deployed 4-6-8-10 or 12 men deep, more than 8 being considered deeper than usual, 4 shallow. We have attested depths of up to 50 hoplites.
2. The above is the exact case in many other armies, like the Romans, the Persians, the Egyptians etc. We have attested depths of up to 100 men (the Egyptians who fought against Cyrus), as Xenophon describes in his Cyropedia!
3. The word "othizein" is not usually used for this seemingly special drill, so any text should be individually analyzed to understand the correct context within which the use of the word lies.
4. The hoplite phalanx (and the Macedonian even more) did not usually charge at a run but at slow pace.
5. The hoplites were trained to act as a single unit and not as individuals and all (at least other) tactics they employed demanded teamwork and were focused on the maintenance of their order.
6. Single combat and bold attacks outside the phalanx were scorned (the Romans even imposed capital punishment against those who endangered the cohesion of their line)
7. Deeper phalanxes did not always (not even usually) win the day.
8. Deeper formations are proposed in tactical manuals when there are unreliable troops present.
9. Shallow formations were employed by experienced troops.
10. The main hoplite weapon was the spear.
Myths
1. The Greeks and the Romans usually charged at a run.
2. After the first minutes, battles degenerated into a disordered melee.
3. The accounts of 10-100 dead of victors in huge battles involving thousands, tens of thousands, sometimes even more than a hundred thousand men are nothing but gross exaggeration and simple propaganda. Casualties were much more heavy...
All the above are factors to consider when trying to solve the mystery of "othismos". I do not clam to propose the one and only truth, but the issue is much more complex than we sometimes give credit to.
Any theory that proposes a forceful mass push by all ranks, according to my opinion is crucially flawed.
1. During a run, it would be impossible to coordinate the ranks to push at the same time. The first rank would fall on the enemy first, then the second etc and as a result, the force of the push would dissipate causing more problems to the attacker than the defender. 8 ranks of defenders would hold back the impetus of a running man and he would have to keep his balance in order to not break the cohesion of his own phalanx. Multiply by a thousand first rankers and you get the picture.
2. Running back ranks would find it impossible to not forcibly fall on the backs of their protostates, however peculiar angles they would have assumed. So, even if they kept their balance, the push would make them lose it again. Just imagine the enemy backstepping and you can imagine what happens if a line pushed on a back without balance... Should the first ranks go down, unable to withstand the pressure of the back ranks, the whole line would crumble.
3. Even at small speeds, uncontrolled pushing would end up in parts of the line (more possibly single files) penetrating the enemy ranks (for 1-2 or more ranks) and not in a mass push. Actually it would be very easy to allow the enemy to penetrate the ranks, only to stab him from his unprotected side. Keep in mind that a man who is pushed from behind is unable to fight, for he cannot keep his balance to do so, while a man being supported by his epistates, as if standing supporting his back on a wall would have the required flexibility to stab, especially if he was trained to oppose blind pushing.
(Actually I have rehearsed such maneuvers multiple times and I always came to the conclusion that a warrior who would push his way into the enemy files would die in a matter of seconds unable to really protect himself, especially if he was allowed to penetrate more than one rank. I am a relatively big guy, so at such a match I pushed my opponent some 3-4 meters away and my own impetus drove me into the enemy formation. In the split seconds that took for me to find my steps, I was dead... )
4. There is no such instance described in any ancient or medieval account.
5. Should the "othismos" occur in the beginning of the battle, then the spear or the pike would not have been the weapon of choice. Striking with a spear while 7-9 or more pen are ready to force you forward would just make things more difficult and would end up in more problems as some spears would break, others would withstand the blow and only keep the assailant away, even if the men were trained to immediately release their spears, another never attested tactic.
6. Why did other armies deploy in such depths?
7.How come that phalanxes 50 men deep lost to phalanxes 12 men deep?
8. Why is order so much being praised, since it would be lost in seconds after the charge?
9. Since raw strength has little to do with experience, why were experienced troops many times arrayed in shallow formations, especially if they were expecting such a forcible push? And of course, why isn't it stated as a tactic to fight against shallow formations?
Conclusion
Blind pushing, a forceful crowd pushing forward most times ends with the front people crushed, which clearly shows that the front ranks would be unable to coordinate their actions being pushed from behind and so, even a small difference in pushing strength or ability to withstand pressure would end up in chaos which would be easily be exploited by an opponent who would be trained to do so.
My proposal is as follows.
The phalanx (hoplite and Macedonian) would close in at slow march. If the enemy was armed with bows, the phalanx would sometimes advance at slow run (also very difficult if you are holding your hoplon towards the enemy, maybe it would be better understood as something between a quick march and a slow run, where you do not have to raise your thighs much, for these would be hindered by a forward looking hoplon.) The objective was to reach at spear point distance (1-2 meters much longer for pikemen), where (as all texts state) you would start stabbing at your opponent. The back ranks would discharge javelins, spears, stones, chairs and whatever else they thought heavy or pointy enough to make the enemy uncomfortable. Spears would break, spears would be given to the front from the back, the wounded and the very few dead would be dragged behind and the epistates would take his place in the front rank. At some point, the signal would be given, the spears would be given to the back ranks and swords would be unsheathed (hoplite phalanx only). At the next signal, the front ranks would march forward with small steps, keeping their holpa locked and presenting a single shieldwall. The enemy might try to keep them back for some time, but they would soon get rid of their spears and draw swords too, since, should the enemy line, just a yard away reach them, their spear hands would present a very good target and they would be unable to hit at the front man of the enemy due to the length of their weapons. During this phase, the back ranks would close in (reduce the distance between ranks from half a meter to a meter or so to nil) support their comrades with their spears, stabbing at the enemy, who would now be very reluctant to even raise his face above his shield, since 2, maybe 3 spears from different angles would attack him. Unable to see much, he would stab above the shield with calculated movements, even coordinate with the man next to him for more chances to produce a wound. Should the battle go well, should the commander detect low morale in the enemy lines, he would give the command for "othismos". The enemy would most possibly already have retreated many yards and now it was time to crush their morale, not their bodies. The line would still be in order, the shields locked, the men behind the swordsmen (most possibly 2-3 ranks) stood firm, supporting their countrymen, not allowing them even the thought of cowering out (and because of the proximity and the support (actually small calculated push), even bodies would remain standing, as is also attested by the ancients)... A loud signal would be given, the back rows would pass the word to the front ranks to await the order (most possibly given to the whole line or at least a big part thereof and not to small subunits). The order would be something like "Half a step forward!", certainly not more than 2-3 steps. At this time, the front ranks would take their pushing positions and at the exact time of the signal they would en mass push forward combining their strengths at a rate not dangerous for the balance of the front rankers shouting something like (en! dio! (one! two!)) to coordinate their steps. The back ranks would not really push hard but more like support the steps advanced by keeping their shieldwalls as a wall to support the backs of the front rankers. In this way, the advance would be also made en mass and the shield wall (order) would remain intact, while an unprepared enemy would succumb and some of the opponents would lose balance, fall and subsequently lose their lives... At this time, the heads of the pushing front rankers would be looking down counting steps, sword in hand, to stab at the feet or head and shoulders of an enemy fallen and trodden over. When the maneuver would be complete (1-3 seconds not more), there would be a short interval to remedy any problem which would arise and then a similar order would be given. Ordered swordplay behind the shieldwall would ensue and the battle would go on. In those accounts, where an "othismos" is seemingly described, we have the commanders shout "Give me a step and we have conquered! (Epameinondas, but not the only example)" It seems that when an enemy was ready to give in, this maneuver would deliver the final blow.
Of course the hoplite shieldwall could not maintain a perfectly straight line. But two or three steps forward, especially if the shields were locked on the right side, would not endanger the cohesion. A right lock, would actually hinder the advance of a very strong individual if his right man was not able to push as effectively, thus protecting the phalanx's order.
This is my opinion regarding the "othismos" drill. I support the massiveness of the drill (everyone partook in it) but not in the absence of control and exertion of uncontrollable raw physical strength and without any attention to and coordination with the other ranks.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 06-23-2009
Quote:My answer: On the evidence we have, the best answer is that Greek and Macedonian files, whether 8,12 or 16 deep ( and rarely 10) did not normally fight as files, but rather as half-files, thus the Macedonian phalanx generally would have fought 8 deep...
The most important activity of an army is fighting a battle and, hopefully, winning. If your statement is correct then the most important officer at "platoon level" is the half file leader. Seems Alexander's army did not have such - as far as I can recall. We have file leaders (and closers) but no attested haf file colleagues.
You insistence on the one line in Xenophon's Anabasis that the fighting depths of Greek pahalanxes was four is a stretch of one single line. I might as well state that Thucydides' mention of Spartan "felt caps" at Sphacteria means Spartan hoplites always wore same, as did the other Greeks. One mercenary army; one place and one pre-dinner display drill. Xenophon himself later states that the army fell into battle order (in another drill at Byzantium if I remeber) eight deep. You hang much wedding tackle on a single line...
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Giannis K. Hoplite - 06-23-2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je-c81ww ... re=related
Is this the correct place to post this? Perhaps a bit relevant?
Khairete
Giannis